Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is a champion of businesses in his constituency. That is one of the reasons unemployment has fallen in Windsor and 2,000 businesses in Windsor are benefiting from our employment allowance. We are going to go on reducing national insurance on employing 21-year-olds and apprentices. The alternative path—the path offered by the Labour party—is to put the jobs tax up. That would increase unemployment and return Britain to the economic mess it was in when Labour was last in charge.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The lower-paid, particularly those who are earning £15,000 a year or less, should benefit from the Chancellor’s decision to raise the personal income thresholds, but will he also look at raising to the same level the threshold at which national insurance contributions are made, so that the lower-paid pay neither income tax nor national insurance contributions on £300 a week?

[Mr Osborne]

We increased the employer’s threshold when we came into office to reverse the damage done by the jobs tax increase proposed by the previous Labour Government. We have used the personal income tax allowance as the best method of lifting people out of income tax. It stands at £10,600, and our long-term economic plan proposes to raise it to £12,500. I am happy to work with the hon. Gentleman on other measures we can undertake to support employment and jobs in Northern Ireland. Is it not absolutely striking that on a question about the jobs tax and a question about unemployment, not a single Labour MP gets up to speak?

Diverted Profits Tax

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) for giving us the opportunity to contribute to the debate. It is always a pleasure to speak on such issues. It is nice to see the shadow Minister in her place. More importantly, it is nice to see the Minister in her place, because we have conversed and supported each other in many debates in Westminster Hall. It is nice to see her back in a ministerial position. I look forward to her response, which will be worth listening to.

The public anger has been immense over this issue. If there is one thing that nyarks people, to use an Ulster Scotsism, in my part of this country, it is the issue of tax avoidance—big companies making money and not making the contribution they should.

We welcome the Chancellor’s introduction of the new tax; we are pleased to see it. Many of the companies that hit the headlines back in 2012—they are not all UK-owned—have been in and out of the news ever since, which infuriates people. The Chancellor said that this new legislation will bring in £1 billion over five years, although others have said that they are not sure whether it is workable. When the Minister replies, will she give us an idea of how it will work and how we can make those companies accountable?

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that although the proposed legislation is welcome, we need to take account of what was said earlier? The director of the Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation said:

“The fundamental problem is the structure of the international tax system”.

In addition to this legislation, we need international co-ordination to prevent people from brass plating.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend and colleague is on the button. Although it is good that we have the legislative change, we need co-operation among countries across the world so we can work together to address this issue.

This new legislation aims to ensure that people pay tax. There are various safeguards that, as my hon. Friend and colleague said, we need to see in place. We need to work better with other countries across the world. We also need to ensure that businesses that are pursued wrongly are not affected.

The legislation is for larger companies. It concerns what is referred to as artificially diverted profits, and that is exactly what it is. Foreign companies must have UK sales of at least £10 million, and if the UK activity would be considered a small or medium-sized company for UK accounting purposes, this new law does not apply, so there are some important concessions.

Finally, the tax provision examines whether UK costs have been inflated or UK sales have been reduced, which is another way of artificially diverting the figures. We must look at whether there is a tax mismatch between what seems likely should have been reported in the UK and what is reported in a foreign company. We need clarification on those issues from the Minister. The hon. Member for Amber Valley set the scene well in his introduction.

Although £10 million might seem like a lot of money, I will put it in perspective. In 2011, Starbucks, a global company that has come into disrepute again for not paying any tax—its coffee is lovely but there is an issue to address elsewhere—made £398 million in UK sales alone. I used the word “nyark” earlier. It nyarks us greatly that companies can make that much turnover and not pay a considerable amount of tax.

Offshore Wind Developments

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) on bringing this important issue before us. I had planned to commence my remarks by saying that it was a pleasure to see such consensus across the House on the importance of long-term planning for the offshore wind industry, but thankfully the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) has shattered that consensus. I will not be following his line of thought on these issues, but he made an interesting contribution to the debate.

I would much rather support the views of the hon. Members for Angus and for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on these matters. Over the past 20 years, I have watched the offshore wind industry develop greatly in my constituency, in north Wales and off Liverpool bay. Some magnificent projects have been supported by Government investment and support, by the granting of visionary planning applications and by partnership between Government and the private sector. Those projects help both to meet the future energy needs of the United Kingdom and to create a supply chain, employment and investment in local industries and skills in areas such as mine.

In north Wales there are some big projects, such as the £2 billion Gwynt y Môr offshore wind project, which reached its halfway point at the end of last year, with 81 of the 160 turbines having been developed. At Christmas, we had the helpful announcement that a further 75 new jobs will be established in both the Liverpool area and in north Wales through the extension of the Burbo Bank wind farm, which is being developed by DONG Energy off the Point of Ayr in my constituency.

As part of the ongoing debate on this issue, I have had representations from Vestas Offshore Wind, which employs a number of individuals in my constituency working out of Mostyn docks. It delivers wind farm equipment to offshore wind farms. An alternative energy park has been developed there from the old industries in my area, through investment and long-term planning.

It is important to recognise—this goes to the heart of what the hon. Member for Christchurch was saying—that the area to the north of my constituency is very much a tourist area. Developments in both sectors are complementary, not alternative. It is important both to secure investment in offshore wind energy and to continue to recognise the environmental impact on the tourist industry.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The right hon. Gentleman is talking about complementarity in tourist areas, such as the one that I represent. Does he agree that, in the private sector, site selection is very important, so as to avoid the type of problems that have occurred on a number of occasions when public opinion has mobilised and opposition has arisen to what are otherwise looked on as welcome developments?

[Mr Hanson]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I will simply say that I will have been the Member of Parliament for my constituency for 23 years in April, and I have never had any strong representations about the massive investment in north Wales for the development of the offshore wind farms that are visible from the northern part of my constituency. That investment is important. It has helped to create employment and alternative energy sources.

I wanted to speak because the hon. Member for Angus made points that will be important for both the Minister today and, I hope, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott). The key thing that both should take from the debate is that whatever final budget is set, we need long-term stability, planning and investment decisions, so that we have a longer period for the immense amount of investment and planning needed to develop these types of sites.

Over the past 20 years I have reflected on the work in my constituency. Although there has been successful development, there is a story of missed opportunities. Siemens in Hull is now developing onshore manufacturing; Vestas, from my constituency, is developing manufacturing capacity on the Isle of Wight—a long way from my patch, but still in the UK. We were campaigning and arguing some 20 years ago for developments in manufacturing capacity to help support the development of the onshore and offshore wind energy industries throughout the whole country, and they have only now taken place. There have been missed opportunities, because the lack of certainty in the long-term commitment to onshore and offshore wind energy has meant that we have often imported manufacturing, rather than developing it locally.

RenewableUK has emphasised that as a minimum we need clarity on the frequency of allocation rounds, and foresight of at least two allocation budgets at any one particular time. We are not arguing for a 15-year or 20-year development, but we need to look at making early decisions on the 2015 allocation. I also suggest, particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central, that we look, if we can, at a seven-to-eight-year period, beyond the next Parliament, so that decisions can be taken on investment. In that way, we can look at not just meeting our long-term alternative energy needs and supporting manufacturing, but how we can attract even more of the supply chain to the United Kingdom as part of a long-term commitment.

In my area, we have Vestas working at Mostyn and the North Hoyle wind farm, and we have the Burbo Bank and the Gwynt y Môr developments. That has all happened because the Government have made allocations and work has been undertaken. However, there is still more potential, not just in the north-west of England and the north of Wales, but in East Anglia, Scotland and elsewhere. We can develop an effective industry that meets our future energy needs, supports manufacturing and, whatever the budget constraints, provides certainty for investment decisions. We could and should be an international leader.

The Economy

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

May I welcome some of the news from the Minister today? The statistics show that there has indeed been an improvement in the economy. It is in the interests of none of our constituents to have an economy that is doing badly simply so that we can score political points. The fact that growth is higher than in the rest of the G7, unemployment has fallen, employment is up and productivity is up, which therefore helps competiveness, is good news and should be welcomed. I have no difficulty welcoming it.

The point of the motion, however, is that that news is not sufficient for smugness or complacency; for a simple acceptance that the plan is working, and that therefore we do not need to do anything more or make any improvements; or for somehow or other rubbishing suggestions just because they come from Opposition Members. The Minister and other Government Members who have spoken should look at some of the statistics.

I do not want to do the economy down. I have seen it happen in Northern Ireland, but people who do that simply talk themselves into a recession anyway, because if confidence goes down, businesses do not want to invest and consumers do not want to spend. Nevertheless, if there are warning signs, we ought to recognise them.

Despite what the Opposition have said, growth over the past few years has been predicated on Government spending. When we look at the figures for the composition of GDP, we see that the biggest increase has been in Government consumption. That is now shifting to consumer consumption, but the figures again show that that is predicated on increased consumer borrowing. Especially when wages are being squeezed in the economy, we ought to be worried about that. It will of course increase household debt, and if consumer spending is carrying economic growth, we should be worried. The Government have made much of wanting export-led growth. Again, the figures for this year show that exports are under pressure: they are not growing where they were growing in the past. There are therefore some warning signs.

Another warning sign is inequality. As has been highlighted, even those in work do not feel any better off. Rather than Government Members saying that it is good to have people in work, they ought to be concerned that even the benefits of their policy are not felt universally, and they ought to accept that something needs to be done about that.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

On that issue, does my hon. Friend agree that the nation of the United Kingdom as a whole should prosper, and that wealth needs to increase—with greater inward investment and greater support for small and medium-sized enterprises—right across the regions of the United Kingdom, rather than disproportionately in the south-east of England?

[Sammy Wilson]

Of course, one of the other inequalities is inequality between the regions. The economy in Northern Ireland has done better in this recession than we expected—we are increasing inward investment through some of the Executive’s micro-economic policies—but there are regional inequalities, as well as inequalities between economic sectors and individuals.

For that reason, we need to look at two issues in the motion. The first is that as the economy grows and the percentage of GDP that is attributed to profits rises, there is no reason why—through increasing the minimum wage or, indeed, through greater application of the living wage—we cannot start some degree of redistribution from those who hold capital to the work force. That would not be a bad thing; indeed, it would be good for the Government finances, because it would of course release an awful lot of the spending on tax credits. In a growing economy, we can afford to do that. It is not only those of us on the Opposition Benches who espouse that policy: the Mayor of London has been an advocate of it. He has argued that it is a Tory policy, and that it should not be captured by the Opposition. We need to look at doing that. Not only would it release some of the Government spending on tax credits, but it has been shown that it tends to increase productivity and leads to a lower turnover of staff, saving expense for employers.

The second issue is borrowing. I understand that we cannot simply borrow, borrow, borrow. However, as I have indicated, the Government are happy for some of the growth in GDP to be carried by household borrowing. Of course, businesses borrow for capital expenditure. Borrowing can provide a return and perform a social function. The motion highlights expenditure for a house building programme. That would have a big multiplier effect on the economy—a multiplier effect that would probably be greater than that of borrowing to pay for people to be on the dole. It therefore makes absolute sense.

Government Members are presenting the motion as one that simply says, “Oh, let’s borrow more money regardless,” rather than one that says, “Let’s borrow money to use where it will actually help the infrastructure of the economy; where it will provide a return; where it will pay for itself over a period of time; where it will deal with a social problem; and where it will perhaps increase the mobility of labour because, of course, more housing enables that to happen across the country.” That, to me, is a sensible policy.

For that reason, I am disappointed that the motion, or at least the ideas in the motion, has not been accepted. If there are warning signs that growth may falter, here are ways in which we can put money into the hands of those who spend most of their income—that is, the low paid—and into capital investments that will have a return, which may, in turn, have an effect on economic growth. For that reason, I will support the motion this evening.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The tax gap as a proportion of tax receipts was higher under the previous Government than for every year under this Government. We have introduced about 40 measures to close loopholes, one of which, on disguised remuneration, let us not forget the Labour party opposed.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Given the Government’s commitment to clamping down on tax avoidance, can the Minister give us a prediction or a commentary on the yield he expects next year as a result?

[Mr Gauke]

As we heard earlier, the yield for 2013-14 was £24 billion. HMRC anticipates that that will be broken and that the yield will be higher for this financial year—the details are to come, but that is encouraging. On the tax gap, the small increase is largely due to the VAT tax gap being higher in 2012-13 than the previous year, but we already know that for 2013-14 it will fall.

Finance Bill

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I take that point in the spirit in which it was offered. I maintain that it is right that we give people greater control and flexibility. This is about ensuring that individuals are in the best position to make the best decisions for them. Guidance is an important part of that, and, from day one, the Government have been very clear that that was the approach we wanted to take. I suspect that there is, at least at some level, a philosophical difference between Members on either side of the Chamber on this point. I do not think that a Labour Government would have brought forward these reforms, but I welcome any extent to which we can have a consensus.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

rose—

[Mr Gauke]

I will give way once more and then I should return to my speech.

[Mr Campbell]

The Minister will be aware that many people are glad that this Government have introduced greater control and flexibility, particularly in pensions. Given that the new individual savings account regime came into force yesterday, will he consider, at a very early stage, introducing flexibility to give people who are saving for their long-term future into retirement—whether through the new ISA or a pension—greater control, particularly as regards spouse-to-spouse transfers?

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. Indeed, I have just signed off a parliamentary answer to one of his questions about this. If I recall correctly, I said that these regimes, in essence, work on an individual basis but matters can be kept under review. I will certainly take his comments as a representation for future reform in this area.

The clauses I have been talking about increase the amount that can be taken as a tax-free lump sum and as a drawdown pension from 27 March 2014. In addition, the Government’s new clauses and new schedule make changes to schedule 29. As I have explained before, on Budget day the Government published a tax information impact note entitled “Increasing pension flexibility”, which covered the impact of the changes set out in clauses 39 and 40. That impact note has been updated to reflect the changes made by new clause 13 and new schedule 5.

As I have previously said, the changes made by clauses 39 and 40 are likely to be of particular benefit to individuals with smaller pension wealth, including women. The same applies to the changes that would be made by new clause 13 and new schedule 5. That is set out in the tax information impact note that was published on 27 June.

I have already mentioned that the Government published a consultation, “Freedom and choice in pensions”, on the broader measures announced in the Budget. That document set out the rationale and the relevant analysis behind the Government’s proposals and invited comments on the expected impacts. The consultation will inform the final shape of the Government’s proposals, including the guidance guarantee. The Government will set out further details in their response to this consultation, which will be published shortly.

Football Clubs (Insolvency)

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this timely debate. Does he agree that on some occasions, the problem has been not only the rule to which he refers, but that in some cases, particularly high-profile cases, chairmen and others in charge of football clubs have spent anticipated revenues, including television money and European money, such as champions league money, long before they are in receipt of it, so that there is very little to distribute even before the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow fails to materialise?

[Damian Collins]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which gets to the heart of my great concern about how the football creditors rule works in practice. Although the rule is an administrative tool used to protect football, what it encourages is profligate spending, because football debts are guaranteed by the Football League and the Premier League. A club selling a player to another club will not particularly worry about whether the buying club can afford the transfer fee that they have engaged to pay, and the selling club will not mind if the payment of those fees is spread out in instalments over a number of years, because they know that the money is guaranteed by the football authorities. Similarly, players signing lucrative contracts with a club will not need to inquire too much into the finances of that club because they know that the money is guaranteed. There is no other area of business where that is true, because no other area of business has that sort of protection, which I believe encourages massive profligacy and spending within the game of football—there is no element of shared risk, and there are no consequences or downsides.

I also believe that that is why the level of insolvency in football is so high. There are no other industries in this country in which one would look at the companies trading in it and say that it would be normal for the insolvency rate to be 46%. The practical way in which the football creditors rule is implemented is driving that culture and practice. Getting rid of it would stop that culture and practice.

It may well be that the football creditors rule would have to be phased out over a couple of years, to give clubs a chance to rebalance. If the financial fair play rules were properly enforced across all the top tiers of football, in many ways the football creditors rule may not be needed anyway. If enforced, financial fair play would create a culture of correct spending in which clubs would not be able to live beyond their means. They would be unable, year after year, to gamble tomorrow’s money for success today in the hope of moving further up the football pyramid.

We can take action to address that culture by getting rid of the football creditors rule. If the football authorities did not want to get rid of the football creditors rule entirely, they could consider creating a sinking fund to guarantee that unsecured creditors such as local businesses that are owed relatively small amounts of money are always compensated in full, instead of receiving the derisory penny in the pound that they often receive at the moment, which is completely unjust and unfair. For a game that is as wealthy as football, there can be no moral justification for that situation.

Later this week, I will publish my private Member’s Bill on football governance. I am grateful for the support of a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), who are all in the Chamber. In that Bill, I set out my view of how insolvency law could be amended to practically eliminate the football creditors rule. I believe that if the football authorities will not demonstrate their desire to do that themselves, it would be a legitimate course of action for us to use Parliament and the law to get rid of the rule.

My Bill also addresses a couple of other important areas related to the insolvency of football clubs and to the culture and practice that I believe drive that insolvency. In addition to getting rid of the football creditors rule, I suggest that there should be a test, which would be particularly relevant to cases such as that of Coventry City, whereby there should be a public declaration of the identity of the owners and investors in a club. I do not think there has ever been a case where the owners of a club have been shrouded in mystery and that club has been a financial success. People rightly question the motivation of people who obscure their identity, often through myriad dummy companies all registered and trading offshore. People question the reasons for that. Football fans should have the right to know the identity of the people who own their club and where their money comes from, which should also be a matter of public investigation.

Alongside that system, we should have a fit and proper person test that is robust and that has teeth, to be administered at the discretion of the football authorities. The situation we have now is ridiculous. In the case of Leeds United in particular, Mr Cellino wants to buy the club. He was formerly convicted of fraud and faces another conviction today, but the Football League might have to wait nine months until the Italian courts hear his appeal case before deciding whether or not to allow him to buy the club. That is totally ludicrous. It should be entirely at the discretion of the football authorities, including the Football Association, as to whether they feel that someone is a fit and proper person.

There is already a helpful precedent for that: the way in which the fit and proper person test is administered by Ofcom with regard to people who may hold a broadcasting licence in the UK. That power was created by the Broadcasting Act 1990 and is administered entirely at the discretion of Ofcom, based on its consideration of whether someone can or is likely to comply with UK broadcasting law, and therefore of whether they are a fit and proper person to hold a broadcasting licence.

Money Transfer Accounts and Remittance Sector

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Rushanara Ali]

I could not agree more. There is a very important question for the Minister about the role that our finance Ministry, working with international Finance Ministers and with our International Development Secretary, can play in taking the lead on supporting countries that are making the transition, so that they can have an effective banking system. That has to happen simultaneously with efforts to find a solution on the issue of remittance. It is critical if we want to ensure that our security and our interests are also served.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady has referred several times to finding a solution. Does she agree with me and with an Oxfam spokesman who has said that what is really required is a long-term, sustainable fix to ensure that this problem does not occur?

[Rushanara Ali]

Yes, of course we need a long-term solution as well as an interim solution. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West set out brilliantly the background—how we got here. Barclays made its decision, following on from decisions that other banks had made, which has led to virtually no opportunities for money transfer companies to use banking facilities to carry out their business, and as a result, many have gone out of business. At this rate, there will not be many left if we do not get our act together and find an interim solution, as well as a long-term solution that involves coming up with an international framework.

Britain has led on these issues in the past and I believe that it can do so again. That is my appeal today to the Minister—that he will work with the Secretary of State for International Development and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and put genuine effort in during the short window of time that we have managed to gain, thanks to the injunction achieved by the company based in my constituency, Dahabshiil, led by Mr Abdirashid Duale. As a result of that, although other companies have closed, it is still going. It is virtually the last one standing, but it is also the biggest company that supports remittance to developing countries.

We have until October, and if a solution—an interim solution as well as a long-term one—is not found, we may see devastation in Somalia, because there are almost no other routes to get money in apart from physically carrying cash, which I am sure no one wants people to be doing, because of the dangers of criminality, terrorism, extremism and many other things. We cannot have a situation in which people must physically transport cash and place themselves at risk of being criminalised, not to mention being the target of criminals, as they try to get money to their communities because of the desperate situation.

Let me remind hon. Members of the context particularly of Somalia, but also of many other countries—we have seen this in Pakistan, Bangladesh and many other countries. At times of crisis, people need to get money into remote places, so even countries with a banking system struggle to enable people to get support—to get remittances—in. That is where money transfer companies play a vital role. They have intimate—close—networks and trusted relationships in remote villages around the world, whereby people can get money to those who cannot travel easily because the infrastructure is not good enough in those countries or because they live in remote places.

Money transfer companies are also vital in times of disaster, as we saw during the humanitarian disaster in east Africa, which affected Somalia, the floods in Pakistan and Bangladesh, the cyclones, and disasters in many other countries. We need to ensure that there are ways in which remittances can be given, so that the pressure on humanitarian assistance does not increase further, which undoubtedly it would do if remittances were prevented from getting to people quickly and safely. Global remittance flows are greater in value than all the international aid budgets put together. We need safe and legal—legitimate—mechanisms whereby people can get help to their families.

In the previous debate, the Minister himself said that his elderly family members had received remittances in the past and continued to do so. I have a similar experience, because my family do the same. It is a critical way in which people support each other. The British Muslim community donate millions of pounds in zakat, which also takes the form of remittances. All those contributions build a vital lifeline for people in developing countries who might not qualify for development aid, but who none the less receive support for education, health care and other costs that enables them to live a decent life.

Remittances contribute greatly to economic development, as I have seen in my constituency, where communities have come together to raise money. I attended a recent event at which some 500 people from the British Somali community got together to raise money. It was organised by some of my constituents who are here today: Ayan Mahamoud, Abdi Rashid Gulaid and many others. They raised nearly £1 million in one evening by calling on the community to act to rebuild their country, to rebuild roads and to rebuild infrastructure.

That is a case in point of communities helping themselves to rebuild their country, rather than depending on aid. We have heard a lot from Ministers from the Department for International Development about the need for self-reliance. I passionately believe that that is what people want in their own countries, and the best way to encourage that is to build a system of remittance through which people can send money legitimately to help rebuild their countries and lift the inhabitants out of poverty. Such a system can work alongside the important international aid effort to which we contribute.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West set out the background and described the inconsistencies inherent in the decision by Barclays. The Government must act to provide a medium-term and a long-term solution to this serious problem. The fact that 130,000 people got behind the campaign and tens of thousands more signed petitions—teenage Somali girls even went around markets and visited people’s houses to get them to sign up to the campaign—shows how much people believe this matters because it affects their lives. People talk about communities feeling disfranchised, but that is an example of a community that led the way because the bank’s decision affected their families and friends so directly.

If we can find a solution to support a country and a community that historically have felt let down by politics—international politics as well as our politics—we will show that we care passionately, as the Prime Minister has said, about countries such as Somalia and support their transition towards peace, stability and economic development. The best way to do that is by supporting legitimate ways to help people help themselves and their families through remittance.

The most urgent of the challenges we face is time. Thanks to the campaign, the support of Members from across the House and the engagement—with some pressure—of Ministers in the Treasury and the Department for International Development, we now have a framework. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West said, the action group on cross-border remittances needs urgently to meet and identify a chair. I hope that the Minister will set out in detail what will happen. We have a window of opportunity that nobody would have believed possible last summer, thanks to the work of the campaign, MPs and the media, and not least the support of double Olympic champion Mo Farah. His foundation, which uses Dahabshiil, has been directly affected because it will find it difficult to send money back to Africa. He said:

“I just cannot see how cutting the remittance lifeline squares with British foreign policy in the Horn of Africa. It will undo all the good work the government has achieved in the region”.

I echo his comments.

The Government have done good work in championing the cause of Somalia and Somaliland, and the Opposition have supported that effort through the Somalia conference. Whether a solution to the problem is found in the coming months—both an interim solution, to ensure that people can continue to remit to countries such as Somalia and places such as Somaliland, and a long-term solution—will make a critical difference to whether Somalia can avoid further conflict and devastation.

I hope that the Minister will push for the action group to come up with a solution that addresses the decision made by Barclays and other banks. Such banks need to feel that the regulatory framework allows them to provide banking facilities to money transfer companies without fear of big fines. There must be consistency and transparency in the decisions made to remove banking facilities from certain companies. The Government must learn lessons from the past, and look at what was done in cases where concerns were raised about money laundering.

Most importantly, as several experts have highlighted, the decision not to provide legitimate banking facilities to money transfer companies will simply drive the whole industry underground. We will return to the bad old days of money flows going into countries without regulation and without their Governments knowing how much money is going in. Some of that money will absolutely end up in the wrong hands, which is dangerous for those countries and for our security. That issue must be confronted. We need a solution that addresses issues of security and counter-terrorism. The withdrawal of legitimate banking facilities will open the way for such forces and present bigger dangers for us, particularly in countries such as Somalia and the surrounding region where there are major concerns about extremism and terrorism.

Bradford & Bingley plc

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Cathy Jamieson]

I said at the beginning that I was sure that hon. Members would be disappointed that I would not be able to describe the day-to-day dealings of the previous Government. I am looking at the case on the basis of the information currently available.

The role of the European Commission was also mentioned. The Competition Commissioner has said:

“The Bradford & Bingley decision illustrates once again the positive contribution of EU state aid policy to ensuring orderly and effective solutions to tackle the financial crisis. The UK authorities’ market-oriented solution has avoided any disproportionate distortions of competition while enabling the preservation of the viable parts of the business.”

At the time, people seemed to be of the belief that the correct decision was made. It was not easy, but it was taken in good faith and because people thought that it was the right thing to do.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s position—she was not a Member of Parliament at the time. However, given the context five years ago, which she is outlining in some detail, and the problems with the Co-op bank now, will she commit to a fully independent investigation into how and why it came about, and put in place steps to ensure that it never happens again?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I want to come on to some of the things we can do to continue to ensure that the things that happened in the past and recently do not happen again. We need to restore confidence in the banking world for customers, consumers and the wider economy. It has given me no pleasure to see yet more allegations and accusations about the practices in RBS in the past few weeks. Various inquiries are looking into those practices.

As hon. Members are aware, I am a Labour and Co-operative MP, and I have had a long involvement in the co-operative movement. It gives me no pleasure to see the situation that the Co-operative bank is in. I am sure that the inquiries will give us further clues about what we need to do to ensure that such things are not repeated in the future. I understand that what I am saying will not be much of a consolation to those who lost their jobs during the Bradford & Bingley situation, or to the shareholders who lost their money. I understand that the hon. Member for Shipley, who has worked hard as a constituency MP, continues to raise these issues to ensure that his constituents get answers.

The Bradford & Bingley shareholder action group, which speaks on behalf of the former shareholders, has run a lengthy campaign. We must ensure that no one else goes through what the people who lost their jobs and those who lost out in the crisis went through. That is why it is important that we work harder to reform the banking system, to ensure that such situations never happen again, and, as we discussed many times in Committee on financial services Bills, to future-proof against anything that could happen in the future. That is why I am making these points.

I am somewhat surprised that the Government have not given their full support to many of the recommendations of the cross-party Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards and the Vickers Independent Commission on Banking, which the Government set up. The Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill was a pretty thin volume in Committee, although it increased exponentially in size thereafter. Labour Members tabled various amendments during the passage of the Bill to ensure more protection for taxpayers and to rebuild consumer choice, financial inclusion and a diverse market. Crucially, we aimed to reform banking standards and the high-risk culture, while boosting the economy. It was disappointing that the Government either watered down or ignored the recommendations of the commissions and voted against most of our amendments. However, there was one victory in the other place yesterday.

I note that in the past couple of days we have heard that the Chancellor has now written to the Bank of England to review the Financial Policy Committee’s powers on leverage ratios. Although it is good news that the Chancellor has belatedly seen the importance of that issue, now that the Bill is in its final stages in the other place, it is a shame that it has taken him so long to do so.

I hope for some leadership from the Minister this morning—I know that he has a thorough understanding of the banking sector. I hope that we will see more of a change of heart from the Chancellor on wider banking reform, so that we can ensure that a similar crisis can never happen again. The Opposition will continue to press for that.

I will conclude on the point with which I started. The hon. Members for Shipley and for Calder Valley talked about a duty of care, which is important for everyone in every sector of the financial services markets. Whether people are in banking, insurance or other institutions, they must realise that they have a responsibility to the customers whose money they look after. I hope that the Government will support the call for a fiduciary duty of care that we have made on many occasions. Will the Minister comment on that, as well as answering the questions that other hon. Members have put to him?

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 25th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Over time, tens of thousands.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Following the success of last week’s G8 summit, Northern Ireland is now looking forward to the international investment conference in October. Will the Treasury work closely with the Prime Minister and the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that we maximise private sector investment in Northern Ireland, both in 2013 and 2014?

[Mr Gauke]

Yes, absolutely. There needs to be a much stronger private sector in Northern Ireland, as has been accepted by this Government and by all the parties in Northern Ireland.